Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Ban Killer Bots,' Urges Human Rights Watch

Posted by Unknown on from the assessment-will-not-be-by-humans dept.

Taco Cowboy writes "A self-proclaimed 'Human Rights Group' — the 'International Human Rights Clinic' from Harvard Law School — has teamed up with 'Human Rights Watch' to urge the banning of 'Killer Robots.' A report issued by the Human Rights Watch, with the title of 'Losing Humanity,' claimed autonomous drones that could attack without human intervention would make war easier and endanger civilians. Where's the 'Robot Rights Watch' just when you need 'em?"

36 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a great idea by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should go back to using cruise missiles and carpet bombing.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Sounds like a great idea by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope, but we dont need fully autonomous killer robots either. Would you rather have a robot determine if a target is worth killing, rather than a human?

    2. Re:Sounds like a great idea by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      I would trust the robot more. You could program it to not take things like emotions into account. You can have it judge if someone is hostile or a combatant and only exercise the force required. Humans are far more likely to overreact.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    3. Re:Sounds like a great idea by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      "Totaler Krieg – Kürzester Krieg", as they say

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    4. Re:Sounds like a great idea by r1348 · · Score: 2

      Adult male = terrorist, as everyone in Pakistan knows.

    5. Re:Sounds like a great idea by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      We should go back to using cruise missiles and carpet bombing.

      Where do you draw the definitional line? Isn't a cruise missile a robot that kills people?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Sounds like a great idea by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      Sounds good, except the master gets to decide who the non-combatant is.

    7. Re:Sounds like a great idea by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      In short order it will be Human with brown skin = terrorist

      As a person with brown skin, I don't like where this is heading.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:Sounds like a great idea by neyla · · Score: 2

      On the topic of cannibalism, Arne Ness once opined that in his opinion, it'd be a significant step forward morally if we would refrain from killing more people than we intend to eat.

    9. Re:Sounds like a great idea by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3

      A robot controlled remotely by a human (even if only for the kill) would accomplish the same. The human is way detached, that it would be easy to control his emotions.

      Haven't we seen this movie before?

      If we uplink now, Skynet will be in control of your military. But you'll be in control of Skynet, right?

      Also it's not actually true that people are more detached. The rates of PTSD amongst drone controllers are apparently ridiculously high for people who are effectively non-combatants. Soldiers in the field are more or less stuck in "kill or be killed" when contact happens, whereas a guy flying a drone always knows he could have simply not pushed the button.

    10. Re:Sounds like a great idea by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      Many armies follow the Geneva convention, or at least pretend to. They do this, not out of concern for the enemy, but out of concern for their own troops. Going to war is psychologically hard. You have to deliberately do the most basic thing we have been drilled is bad: kill people. This makes people break down. The break-down is slower if you believe you are at least following some rules. It might be the same for these robots, at least as long as they have human pilots: The pilots might last longer if they believe the robot follows some basic rules. It might also make the firing faster: If the pilot trusts the robot to not shoot against non-combatants, it is easier to pull the trigger. Of course, this could also lead to more civilians being shot, as the pilot outsource all morality to the algorithm.

    11. Re:Sounds like a great idea by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And it's probably a good thing that drone operators do get PTSD. Not for them, obviously, but for the innocent people on the ground whose only hope of survival is that drone operator hesitating when he isn't 100% sure who he is firing at.

      War has to be nasty and carry horrible consequences for both sides, otherwise it will become too easy. IMHO it already has.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Killing without human intervention? by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's nothing new. It's no different than land mines...

    Oh, wait...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  3. Human rights by Marxdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would you deride human rights groups, Taco Cowboy? And yes, drones that attack autonomously are a very bad idea.

  4. the danger of abstracted combat by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While cliche, take a look at "wargames".

    Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.

    It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.

    A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!

    When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.

    The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!

    The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.

    1. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But we have all been taught from an early age that it is wrong to feel guilt for killing bad guys. If you feel guilty, then you are *for* the bad guys, and therefore one of *them*. ( remember, its a binary good/evil world we live in, amiright?)

      Killing bad guys is doing your country a service, we are taught. We are making the world a better place, a safer place, when we kill our enemies.

      This we are taught. If any one disagrees with that, then they are unpatriotic, and aiding and abetting the enemy.

      This we are taught, so it must be true.

    2. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is an enemy?

      Is it a person who wishes to do you harm?
      A person who wants to take something you have?
      A person with whom you disagree?
      Or just someone in the way of what you want to do?

      In a war, do not both sides, regardless of the motives of either side, satisfy all of those? Is it no wonder that both sides refer to the other as the enemy?

      In this case, what do the "terrorists" represent, that they merit being exterminated, without conscience nor remorse?

      "Thy killed a shitton of people when they bombed the trade center!" You say?

      Why? Why did they blow up the trade center?

      It couldn't be because our countr(y/ies) was(were) meddling in their affairs, causing them harm, taking things from them, and fundementally in disagreement with their way of life?

      Certainly not! They should be HAPPY that we want to destroy their culture, because we view certain aspects of it as being backwards and primitive! Our way is simply BETTER!

      Now, let's do a thought experiment here. Powerful aliens come down from wherever out in space they are from, find our culture to be backward and primitive, and start strongarming us to cease being who we are, and become like them. They say it's a better way. Maybe it is. That isn't the point. The point is that they don't give us the choice. They do this because it makes it easier for them to establish trade with them, or to work within their stellar economy, or whatever. They profit, by eliminating our culture.

      Would we not go to war with them, fighting their influence in every possible way, and even resort to guerilla and "terrorist" acts when faced by such a superior foe?

      After thinking about that, can you really say you are any different than the "terrorists" we condemn with military machines daily?

      We kill them, because they don't submit. They don't submit, because we are destroying and marginalizing their culture, because we feel it isn't worth retaining/is backward.

      They don't want our help. They don't want our culture. They dnt want our values. They don't want us. We insist on meddling on all of thoe things.

      We started the war.

    3. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude have you seen what happens when people are forced to kill face-to-face? They don't rely on their "conscience" to limit human casualties, they mentally reassign their opponents as non-human and murder them like you or I would murder a termite colony infesting our houses. History is nothing but one long string of horrific atrocity after atrocity committed by warring factions against the opposing side, or civilians, or even their own comrades in arms if there isn't a convenient "other" nearby they can target. Moving to a more abstracted method of fighting isn't just about saving our own forces' physical and mental well-being, it's also about limiting the damage they cause to others when they snap from the pressure and take their aggression out on whoever's available.

      Of course we need to monitor our use of robots - we need a system of checks and balances in place to keep the controllers from engaging in unnecessary combat. But drones don't mass-rape, they don't torture old men and little children for fun, they don't raid houses to steal anything of value within, they don't build towers out of the skulls of their enemies, and they won't burn entire villages to the ground massacring everyone within because they're upset that their buddy was killed in combat the other day. Human involvement isn't always a good thing.

    4. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by Eevee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!

      So you're for robots and drones, right? Because right now the glitch in programming is when human soldiers in a combat area see someone with something that might be a weapon, they tend to shoot them. Why? Because the ones going "Is that a weapon or is it a broom" don't tend to last when it is actually is a weapon. A drone operator, on the other hand, can take the time to evaluate the situation since they aren't in harm's way.

    5. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      . First off, it's not the soldiers who are deciding to conduct the war. Civilian governments are the ones who decide to go to war, and they don't suffer from the innate guilt of killing people.

      Exactly. The soldier is to government, what the drone is to the soldier. A layer of abstraction, that makes the burden of killing another person easier to bare.

      The government points soldiers, and says "Kill!". They don't see the faces of those they killed, not have to face the families of the slain. The numbers killed are just nameless, nonhuman statistics. The enemy isn't a person anymore, and killing doesn't induce guilt.

      The soldier suffers psychological harm from following those orders, and sometimes even refuses to follow them, if they inhuman enough. To government, the abstraction then fails.

      They solved it by abstracting the killing away from the soldier too.

      Who will protest an order to comit a warcrime, when nobody with control over the automated weapons cares?

      What you have said just now is not license to use drones, because of an existing evil. It is proof of the argument I tendered.

      We make war too easily already. We DON'T need to make it even easier.

    6. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are not comprehending what I am telling you.

      War is to be avoided, because nothing about it is good, just, nor honorable. War scars the minds of those who engage in it, live through it, or even witness it first hand. The damage and price of war is more than just soldiers killed and buildings blown up. It is the destruction of people's lives, in every imaginable sense. Surviving a war might be less humane than dieing in it.

      The point was that by removing the consequences of war, (soldiers becoming bloodthirsty psychos that rape, kill, torture, and lose respect for the lives of others, all others-- in addition to simply having people die, and having economic and environmental catatrophes on your hands), you make war look more and more desirable as an option.

      What I was trying to get you to see, is that war is always a bad thing, and trying to mae it seem like less of a bad thing is the WRONG way to go about it.

    7. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      May as well take it all the way and make warfare totally clean and normal.

      Have the computers on both sides simulate their attacks, then declare casualties. Anyone on the casualty list then simply reports to a termination booth to be quickly and humanely killed.

      Hmmm... This sounds rather familiar come to think of it...

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    8. Re:the danger of abstracted combat by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with making war "clean and precise" is that you remove all the disincentives to engage in war to begin with.

      At the press of a button, the insurgents/terrorists/rebels/invaders/$targetedPeople all die, cleanly, humanely.

      That is the ultimate evolution of the direction you advocate.
      Who decides who is the target and who isn't? What happens if there is a miscalculation?

      Now do you see why this is bad?

  5. Ban by ThePeices · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trying to ban killer robots is a waste of time, and wont work. There is also little desire to ban them overall, in the interests of health and safety.

    Its safer to kill people using a robot than going out and risking your own skin with guns and/or explosives.
    Remember, in this day and age, safety is paramount. You want to be able to kill people from a distance, safely and easily. Why run the risk of getting injured, or even worse, getting killed, when you can kill people using safer methods? Using a robot to kill people just makes sense.

    Even worse, you could get sued for endangering the safety of others and breaking health and safety regulations. Killing other people can be a dangerous business, so reducing potential hazards and minimizing harm is a very prudent and right thing to do. You need to be able to kill people safely and efficiently. If you can kill people at a lower cost, then that is even better.

    Thats why drones are so popular nowadays. All the benefits of killing people, without all the personal risk. Its a win-win all round.

    Makes sense doesn't it?

  6. Banning something which doesn't exist by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one has autonomous battlefield drones yet, and I highly doubt any military would rely on them, ever. Well.. unless it's a robot military after they gain sentience and create their own civilization, but then they would be as human as us.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  7. Wrong target by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Killer Bots dont kill people, people kills people. Ban the people responsible for those killer bots, and, uh... oh, wait, they just got reelected.

  8. bring everyone back to the iron age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a scortched earth policy: where you knock down granaries, cripple tractors and plows, break down damns and salt the earth if you have to is not really the kind of society we wish to represent.

  9. The Milgram Experiments: the reason why by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    As has been stated in other posts, every level of abstraction away from the act of violence removes a layer of conscience from the execution of the act; whether it be robots, drone strikes, or trigger-happy, 60 year-old politicians who ducked service in Vietnam.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  10. War and Pacifism by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.

    Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.

    Let's say that China attacks Guam tomorrow, and starts moving for Hawaii and the US mainland. What should be done? What should France have done when Germany invaded them in the blitzkrieg?

    Clearly somebody isn't justified in any war. Frequently it's both parties. However, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say that war is never justified for any of the participants.

    Yes, war is never, ever a good thing. Sometimes, though, it really is better than the alternative.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  11. Childhood flashback... by warGod3 · · Score: 2

    So I'm now remembering watching Wargames back in 1983... and it makes me remember that I thought it odd that no one would have any kind of overrides in place, human or otherwise...

    The article does stipulate that we should ban killer robots now, even though that no one has one or has stated what kind of timeline we can expect for the emergence of these 'killer robots'. To be quite honest, it will take one hell of a long time to get one deployed. Look at how long it takes for the military (specifically the US) to even get aircraft fielded...

    I think that this is more of a "Hey, we need to scare people a little so we can get some attention..." than anything else...

    --
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
  12. Re:DIY by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3302763.stm

    --
  13. Re:Robot rights? by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

    They don't have feelings. If you don't believe me, go stab your toaster.

    I tried that and it bit me. Now I've got a burn scar all down my arm and I'm convinced it's plotting with the microwave.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  14. Those who ban killer robots... by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...will be killed by the robots of those who don't.

  15. Re:Ban the drones by tsotha · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have permission from the country involved. Those strikes are happening in countries where the national government doesn't control all of its territory. Drones are a good weapon to use against people in non-state organizations like Al Queda. Innocent deaths are minimized and you can actually damage the organization by getting to the planners instead of just killing indoctrinated sixteen year olds.

  16. Re:Your morals have no place in reality by c0lo · · Score: 2

    Some times it is good to just clean house.

    May I have your address, please?
    I'll try to avoid the place, just in case you decided to clean your house using some dynamite sticks.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  17. Re:The Geneva Convention is by SuperAlgae · · Score: 2

    That's easy enough to say until someone declares your home a war zone.